Hi Konstantin, On 11/27/2014 04:29 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> As I suggested in the TSO thread, I think the following semantics >> is easier to understand for the user: >> >> - PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM: tell the NIC to compute IP cksum >> >> - PKT_TX_IPV4: tell the NIC it's an IPv4 packet. Required for L4 >> checksum offload or TSO. >> >> - PKT_TX_IPV6: tell the NIC it's an IPv6 packet. Required for L4 >> checksum offload or TSO. >> >> I think it won't make a big difference in the FVL driver. > > No, no big difference here, but I still think it will be a bit cleaner if all > 3 flags would be nutually exclusive. > In fact, we can unite all 3 of them them into 2 bits, same as we doing > for L4 checksum flags.
In case of TSO, you need to set the PKT_TX_IPV4 flag. But as suggested by Yong Wang from Vmware [1], the vmxnet3 driver could support TSO without offloading IP checksum, so I think it's better to have flags for (is_ipv4 or is_ipv6), and another one to ask the ip_checksum. > You mean a new DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_* value, right? > Something like: DEV_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_TUNNEL? > And make i40e_dev_info_get() to return it? > Yes, forgot about it, sounds like a proper thing to do. Yes. I've seen that Jijiang is planning to add it in a future bug fix patch. That's fine to me. [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-November/007775.html Regards, Olivier
